> > I really don't think there's a reason to discourage it at this point, and if it works,
> > as several of us have guessed, then we have gained a great deal.
>> Conversely, there's no reason to blindly encourage the use of an
> unproven technology.
Let's be clear on this. Many people consider Cython/Pyrex to be
extremely well proven. Just ask the developers of any of the projects
that have been using cython/pyrex for years. Cython may not have
proven itself in your mind, but those of us who are advocating its use
_do_ consider it to be a proven technology.
Second, for many of us, our advocacy comes not out of blindness, but
out of actually using cython for real projects and understanding its
strengths and weaknesses.
> really *dislike* the approach of "we need to reimplement X in Cython,
> because Cython is amazing". I'm not arguing against the use of
> Cython, I'm only moderating what comes across as naive evangelism for
> a shiny new technology.
> For example, I have heard numerous statements about how incredibly
> slow SWIG wrappers are ("because the top layer is pure Python"). This
> may be true, on the other hand it may not be true. It may be true
> only for some applications and not for others. Ultimately, the burden
> of proof is on the Cython proponents to provide supporting evidence
> for their claims. Once we have this evidence we can make an informed
> decision about how to proceed.
>> --
> Nathan Bell wnbell@gmail.com>http://graphics.cs.uiuc.edu/~wnbell/> _______________________________________________
>>> Scipy-dev mailing list
>Scipy-dev@scipy.org>http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev>